Bobby Hauck Story

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:09 am

Are we there yet?

If not get a few more gals like the one in the picture and maybe we can hit 20 pages.

She makes the trip to 20 pages a lot more fun to deal with than most of you guys.

No offense.

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:10 am

Yes, I knew I was going to take this over to the 13th page with that post!

7 to go.

Cat in NC · Post by **Cat in NC** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:06 am

Hmmmm, if I were Bobby, I would want to hide behind this couch...

or this couch...

crazycat · Post by **crazycat** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:04 am

Cat in NC wrote:Hmmmm, if I were Bobby, I would want to hide behind this couch...

or this couch...

See! I told ya!!! These are pictures of Andre Gurode before he signed with Colorado. OK, time for all you griz dudes to bow at my feet!!

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:32 am

Eastcoastgriz wrote:
catatac wrote: Lastly, if you Google "Bobby Hauck Recruiting Violations"... there have been a few instances where he's crossed the line.

I just googled "Bobby Hauck Recruiting Violations" and here is the first link:

In the world of college football recruiting, University of Washington assistant coach Bobby Hauck is a closer. His ability to win over young athletes -- as well as their parents -- has earned him a national reputation.

"He is recognized as being an exceptional recruiter," said Allen Wallace, publisher of Superprep magazine.

Said Bobby Burton, director of Rivals.com, "There's no question he's one of the most highly regarded recruiters. He's tireless. That's the mark of a great recruiter."

"Hauck's secret isn't mysterious. It's a mixture of hard work, charm, enthusiasm and honesty."

By TED MILLER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

I looked at the first 30ish links and not one word of any recruiting violation by coach Hauck. Maybe someone else could post these supposed violations by Hauck.

Hmmm... you must use a different Google than I do. Literally, these are the first 3 articles that come up in my list...

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/column ... lties.html

http://gohuskies.cstv.com/genrel/030499aab.html

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007 ... tters4.txt

A couple quotes... "The penalties stem from two main incidents. On Jan. 31, five assistant coaches (Keith Gilbertson, Randy Hart, Bob Hauck, Tim Hundley and Wayne Moses) had personal contact with eight recruits, a violation of the NCAA "quiet period," which bans contact the Sunday prior to the national "letter of intent" signing day."

and "Bob Hauck also made several calls to his players at Colorado. According to Dan Coonan's interviews with Hauck, Hauck made about a dozen calls, all within a day or two of the January 11 meeting. According to Hauck, all of the players he contacted were ones with whom he had a personal relationship - those he personally recruited or for whom he was their position coach. He neither encouraged nor discussed transferring to Washington, but simply said goodbye to the players and wished them well. Although Hauck had made the decision to leave Colorado and accept a position as an assistant coach at Washington, he had not as yet left his position at Colorado."

Nothing too major here, but please don't pretend like he's a saint and every little negative thing that you hear about him is just made up by Cat fans...

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:53 am

catatac wrote:and "Bob Hauck also made several calls to his players at Colorado. According to Dan Coonan's interviews with Hauck, Hauck made about a dozen calls, all within a day or two of the January 11 meeting. According to Hauck, all of the players he contacted were ones with whom he had a personal relationship - those he personally recruited or for whom he was their position coach. He neither encouraged nor discussed transferring to Washington, but simply said goodbye to the players and wished them well. Although Hauck had made the decision to leave Colorado and accept a position as an assistant coach at Washington, he had not as yet left his position at Colorado."

Uhh...I see you conveniently decided to delete the next sentence from this paragraph. From the link that you provided, here is the paragraph in its entirety:

Bob Hauck also made several calls to his players at Colorado. According to Dan Coonan's interviews with Hauck, Hauck made about a dozen calls, all within a day or two of the January 11 meeting. According to Hauck, all of the players he contacted were ones with whom he had a personal relationship - those he personally recruited or for whom he was their position coach. He neither encouraged nor discussed transferring to Washington, but simply said goodbye to the players and wished them well. Although Hauck had made the decision to leave Colorado and accept a position as an assistant coach at Washington, he had not as yet left his position at Colorado. It is not clear whether, under these circumstances, Hauck's calls constituted even a technical violation; but, to the extent they did, they were of a very minor nature.

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm sure you only deleted that last sentence because you didn't think it was relevant in the context of a fair, impartial discussion of the issues, and not because it tends to completely undercut your argument.

http://gohuskies.cstv.com/genrel/030499aab.html

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:28 am

Damn Lawyers.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:40 am

Billings_Griz wrote:Damn Lawyers.

Yeah, I know. Thanks to us, a guy can't even get away with making a half-baked attempt at misrepresenting the conclusions found in a report. What's this world coming to?

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:59 am

catatac wrote:
Eastcoastgriz wrote:
catatac wrote: Lastly, if you Google "Bobby Hauck Recruiting Violations"... there have been a few instances where he's crossed the line.

I just googled "Bobby Hauck Recruiting Violations" and here is the first link:

In the world of college football recruiting, University of Washington assistant coach Bobby Hauck is a closer. His ability to win over young athletes -- as well as their parents -- has earned him a national reputation.

"He is recognized as being an exceptional recruiter," said Allen Wallace, publisher of Superprep magazine.

Said Bobby Burton, director of Rivals.com, "There's no question he's one of the most highly regarded recruiters. He's tireless. That's the mark of a great recruiter."

"Hauck's secret isn't mysterious. It's a mixture of hard work, charm, enthusiasm and honesty."

By TED MILLER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

I looked at the first 30ish links and not one word of any recruiting violation by coach Hauck. Maybe someone else could post these supposed violations by Hauck.
Hmmm... you must use a different Google than I do. Literally, these are the first 3 articles that come up in my list...

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/column ... lties.html

http://gohuskies.cstv.com/genrel/030499aab.html

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007 ... tters4.txt

A couple quotes... "The penalties stem from two main incidents. On Jan. 31, five assistant coaches (Keith Gilbertson, Randy Hart, Bob Hauck, Tim Hundley and Wayne Moses) had personal contact with eight recruits, a violation of the NCAA "quiet period," which bans contact the Sunday prior to the national "letter of intent" signing day."

and "Bob Hauck also made several calls to his players at Colorado. According to Dan Coonan's interviews with Hauck, Hauck made about a dozen calls, all within a day or two of the January 11 meeting. According to Hauck, all of the players he contacted were ones with whom he had a personal relationship - those he personally recruited or for whom he was their position coach. He neither encouraged nor discussed transferring to Washington, but simply said goodbye to the players and wished them well. Although Hauck had made the decision to leave Colorado and accept a position as an assistant coach at Washington, he had not as yet left his position at Colorado."

Nothing too major here, but please don't pretend like he's a saint and every little negative thing that you hear about him is just made up by Cat fans...

Did you even READ those links??? Other than making calls to former players at Colorado (while he was still a coach at Colorado), and calling a few players one day into a quiet period because his head coach didn't know the rule, please tell me what the big, bad ogre Hauck did that is so terrible?

And as GL said, nice job of cutting out the most-significant sentence in the entire article. At least you're objective.

crazycat · Post by **crazycat** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:20 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
Billings_Griz wrote:Damn Lawyers.
Yeah, I know. Thanks to us, a guy can't even get away with making a half-baked attempt at misrepresenting the conclusions found in a report. What's this world coming to?

We keep bouncing from one extreme to the next here. If you go to Google and plunk in 'football recruiting violations' you'll get a lot of discussion on the subject from specific cases to general commentary.

The specific cases talk about some of the more hardcore instances, while the general commentary is more along the lines of what we're discussing here. One I read yesterday pointed out that these minor violations (one is called "bumping" where a coach knows a prospect will be somewhere and then 'accidentally' bumps into him). Apparently this occurs a lot. It also discussed that these ticky-tack recruiting violations are along the lines of a gentlemen's agreement amongst all schools/coaches. No one reports another, because they all do the same thing. What happens is that once in a while someone gets mad because they lost a recruit or think someone is pushing the bounds a little bit and they rat them out. Kind of like a room full of crooks with guns pointed at each other's heads. The problem is that if one gun goes off (someone rats someone out) then everyone gets nervous. Usually this opens the rat up to being ratted on himself, so it doesn't happen a lot.

My take is that these things that Neuheisal was accused of all fit into this minor (like bumping) category. He, and I suppose Hauck, were just doing what everyone else was doing and then something went haywire. Who really knows what? (MSU's coaches, everyone, probably does this stuff).

Personally I don't think anything Hauck has done is "major" and have just been pointing it out. Yeah, what you're thinking to youself is right, I'm one of these people that feels like when I get ripped apart for something, I think that everyone else that does the same thing should get ripped apart, too. Call it feeling sorry for myself, crying, whining, whatever. That's it. Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but it seems like Kramer has been beat up pretty unfairly for how things worked out for him VS. how Hauck has been treated for how things went down for him.

The difference, as I see it, is that Hauck brought some guys in with prior problems, while Kramer brought guys in that didn't have priors that I know of. And Haucks guys weren't busted for dealing drugs, while Kramer's were. Other than that they are pretty similar. I think we all agree that if you're going to bring in guys with priors that you should keep it to a dull roar (Hauck) and that you should keep a better eye on (Kramer) the players you do bring in.

BUT!!!, that doesn't mean I'm saying Hauck is a demon for bringing in guys with priors, I'm just pointing out the difference. The reason I'm doing that is because it doesn't seem like people understand that. Maybe they do and I'm not picking up on it. I don't think he should be fired for it. I just wish people would acknowledge that instead of making excuses for it or minimizing it.

It sucks that Kramer brought in guys that became crooks and I'm mad at him for anything he did that made that happen or didn't do to ensure that it didn't happen, but I don't think he should've been fired.

This thread has had some heated back-n-forth exchanges where some inappropriate things were said and I'm guilty of that and apologize for offending anyone.

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:53 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
Billings_Griz wrote:Damn Lawyers.
Yeah, I know. Thanks to us, a guy can't even get away with making a half-baked attempt at misrepresenting the conclusions found in a report. What's this world coming to?

Eastcoastgriz · Post by **Eastcoastgriz** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:54 pm

crazycat wrote:
The difference, as I see it, is that Hauck brought some guys in with prior problems, while Kramer brought guys in that didn't have priors that I know of. And Haucks guys weren't busted for dealing drugs, while Kramer's were. Other than that they are pretty similar. I think we all agree that if you're going to bring in guys with priors that you should keep it to a dull roar (Hauck) and that you should keep a better eye on (Kramer) the players you do bring in.

We all know thats not true.

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:56 pm

Yep, I did leave out that last part, knowing that you guys would be sure to fill it in!

I also said that these weren't huge deals in my opinion. Neither is the betting pool violation that Bobby was involved with that I didn't mention. None of this, though... explains how in the world these were the first 3 things at the top of my Google list... yet somehow "the first 30ish" articles that came up in your list supposedly didn't mention any of these things. You are going to www.google.com rather than www.google.org... correct?

Anyway, I am all for morphing this thread into Hotties...

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:26 pm

catatac wrote:Yep, I did leave out that last part, knowing that you guys would be sure to fill it in! I also said that these weren't huge deals in my opinion. Neither is the betting pool violation that Bobby was involved with that I didn't mention. None of this, though... explains how in the world these were the first 3 things at the top of my Google list... yet somehow "the first 30ish" articles that came up in your list supposedly didn't mention any of these things. You are going to www.google.com rather than www.google.org... correct?

Anyway, I am all for morphing this thread into Hotties...

Bobby was already at Montana when the betting pool issue ocurred at Washington. He had no more part in that than you or I did.

And my post said that in 6 pages I could not find any recruiting violations. That was in reply to cc's contention that if you google BH and recruiting violations, all sorts of things came up. I simply posted I didn't find an article that shows he has committed anything beyond the 1-day quiet call, and that was Nieuheisal's issue, not BH's.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:47 pm

catatac wrote:Yep, I did leave out that last part, knowing that you guys would be sure to fill it in!

Dammit -- you were supposed to get all defensive, and entertain us with some ****** explanation that actually tried to rationalize why you left out the last sentence.

I'm with you on the hotties, though -- especially if the first two Wolf Pack hotties are any indication of things to come.

crazycat · Post by **crazycat** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:14 pm

GrizinWashington wrote:
catatac wrote:Yep, I did leave out that last part, knowing that you guys would be sure to fill it in! I also said that these weren't huge deals in my opinion. Neither is the betting pool violation that Bobby was involved with that I didn't mention. None of this, though... explains how in the world these were the first 3 things at the top of my Google list... yet somehow "the first 30ish" articles that came up in your list supposedly didn't mention any of these things. You are going to www.google.com rather than www.google.org... correct?

Anyway, I am all for morphing this thread into Hotties...
Bobby was already at Montana when the betting pool issue ocurred at Washington. He had no more part in that than you or I did.

And my post said that in 6 pages I could not find any recruiting violations. That was in reply to cc's contention that if you google BH and recruiting violations, all sorts of things came up. I simply posted I didn't find an article that shows he has committed anything beyond the 1-day quiet call, and that was Nieuheisal's issue, not BH's.

I think I said if you Google "Neuheisal + recruiting violations" all kinds of things come up. I also said to Google 'football recruiting violations' but I don't recall saying to Google "hauck recruiting violations". Maybe I did, but of late I've been trying to leave Hauck's name out whenever possible.

crazycat · Post by **crazycat** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:18 pm

GrizinWashington wrote:
catatac wrote:Yep, I did leave out that last part, knowing that you guys would be sure to fill it in! I also said that these weren't huge deals in my opinion. Neither is the betting pool violation that Bobby was involved with that I didn't mention. None of this, though... explains how in the world these were the first 3 things at the top of my Google list... yet somehow "the first 30ish" articles that came up in your list supposedly didn't mention any of these things. You are going to www.google.com rather than www.google.org... correct?

Anyway, I am all for morphing this thread into Hotties...
Bobby was already at Montana when the betting pool issue ocurred at Washington. He had no more part in that than you or I did.

And my post said that in 6 pages I could not find any recruiting violations. That was in reply to cc's contention that if you google BH and recruiting violations, all sorts of things came up. I simply posted I didn't find an article that shows he has committed anything beyond the 1-day quiet call, and that was Nieuheisal's issue, not BH's.

Former UW quarterbacks coach Steve Axman, now UCLA's offensive coordinator, told the P-I he also participated in that pool and has self-reported the NCAA violation. Former UW assistant Bobby Hauck, now head coach at the University of Montana, said he "would assume I did" take part in the pool.

As for any further pools, Hauck said he couldn't remember.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskies/1 ... usk20.html

And, no, I don't care that Hauck was involved in the pool. Very harmless stuff.

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:50 pm

crazycat wrote:
GrizinWashington wrote:
catatac wrote:Yep, I did leave out that last part, knowing that you guys would be sure to fill it in! I also said that these weren't huge deals in my opinion. Neither is the betting pool violation that Bobby was involved with that I didn't mention. None of this, though... explains how in the world these were the first 3 things at the top of my Google list... yet somehow "the first 30ish" articles that came up in your list supposedly didn't mention any of these things. You are going to www.google.com rather than www.google.org... correct?

Anyway, I am all for morphing this thread into Hotties...
Bobby was already at Montana when the betting pool issue ocurred at Washington. He had no more part in that than you or I did.

And my post said that in 6 pages I could not find any recruiting violations. That was in reply to cc's contention that if you google BH and recruiting violations, all sorts of things came up. I simply posted I didn't find an article that shows he has committed anything beyond the 1-day quiet call, and that was Nieuheisal's issue, not BH's.
I think I said if you Google "Neuheisal + recruiting violations" all kinds of things come up. I also said to Google 'football recruiting violations' but I don't recall saying to Google "hauck recruiting violations". Maybe I did, but of late I've been trying to leave Hauck's name out whenever possible.

if you Google "Bobby Hauck Recruiting Violations

You said Hauck. Perhaps you meant Slick Rick.

As for the betting pool, we are both correct. The pool you're refering to is the $5 NCAA BB bracket the coaching staff participated in after the UW compliance officer wrote the now-infamous memo stating it was acceptable. The pool that really got Slick Rick in trouble was a Monte Carlo style betting pool that took place in his snobby neighborhood, and which did not involve any others from the athletic dept, and which was NOT a $5 pool (Rick won it and I believe collected a couple grand in the deal). But I agree with you the small bracket pool was certainly not an issue (although technically against the rules, no matter what the compliance officer stated).

crazycat · Post by **crazycat** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:44 pm

GrizinWashington wrote:
crazycat wrote:
GrizinWashington wrote:
catatac wrote:Yep, I did leave out that last part, knowing that you guys would be sure to fill it in! I also said that these weren't huge deals in my opinion. Neither is the betting pool violation that Bobby was involved with that I didn't mention. None of this, though... explains how in the world these were the first 3 things at the top of my Google list... yet somehow "the first 30ish" articles that came up in your list supposedly didn't mention any of these things. You are going to www.google.com rather than www.google.org... correct?

Anyway, I am all for morphing this thread into Hotties...
Bobby was already at Montana when the betting pool issue ocurred at Washington. He had no more part in that than you or I did.

And my post said that in 6 pages I could not find any recruiting violations. That was in reply to cc's contention that if you google BH and recruiting violations, all sorts of things came up. I simply posted I didn't find an article that shows he has committed anything beyond the 1-day quiet call, and that was Nieuheisal's issue, not BH's.
I think I said if you Google "Neuheisal + recruiting violations" all kinds of things come up. I also said to Google 'football recruiting violations' but I don't recall saying to Google "hauck recruiting violations". Maybe I did, but of late I've been trying to leave Hauck's name out whenever possible.

if you Google "Bobby Hauck Recruiting Violations
You said Hauck. Perhaps you meant Slick Rick.

As for the betting pool, we are both correct. The pool you're refering to is the $5 NCAA BB bracket the coaching staff participated in after the UW compliance officer wrote the now-infamous memo stating it was acceptable. The pool that really got Slick Rick in trouble was a Monte Carlo style betting pool that took place in his snobby neighborhood, and which did not involve any others from the athletic dept, and which was NOT a $5 pool (Rick won it and I believe collected a couple grand in the deal). But I agree with you the small bracket pool was certainly not an issue (although technically against the rules, no matter what the compliance officer stated).

I'm sure you're probably right, but can you direct me to where I said that. Just give me the page number and I'll look it up. I could only find two instances that allude to using Google and neither mentions Hauck. Maybe there's a third and not seeing it.

JDoub · Post by **JDoub** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:13 pm

catatac wrote:
Anyway, I am all for morphing this thread into Hotties...

OK Nevada Wolfpack Hotties

Alyx Sacks (great name!), Erin Smith, Soccer

Meghann Morrill, Rifle Team (OK, just the sight of a decent chick holding a gun makes her a hottie to me)

Amy Harris, Skiing ......... Ashley Nichelman, Brittany Puzey, Softball